If Pam Bondi can refuse to answer questions she is asked, I can answer questions that I am not asked. Fair is fair. One question nobody asks me is: what are some highlights of your legal career? The times when I felt the best. Today, I will tell you one. Tomorrow, another. Then we will see.

My 40+ year legal career centered, as you may know, on affordable housing. Transactional work, development work, partnership and corporate work, securities work, administrative work, trade association work, and litigation. While litigation was never the majority of what I did, it certainly provided highlights.

One highlight involved a case brought against the United States government in the Court of Federal Claims, the court where you must bring monetary claims against the government. My client was a Pennsylvania based construction company that bought an apartment development in suburban Houston from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  HUD had previously foreclosed on the property and now owned it. It was still occupied. They offered it for sale at a form of auction to the highest bidder.

HUD sold properties on the basis of a short, but dense, prospectus. Among other things, this prospectus contained a carrot and a stick. The carrot was that the buyer would be given Section 8 subsidies to enable low income tenants to afford to live at the property. The stick was that the property would have to be renovated in accordance with HUD-approved plans.

After the sale was consummated, HUD told my client that there was one thing they should know that was not spelled out in the prospectus. The Section 8 subsidies would not be available until after the renovations were completed. This made the purchase completely unaffordable. We sued in the Court of Federal Claims.

This happened in 1989 or 1990, the period after my first firm, Lane and Edson, had disbanded, and before Hessel and Aluise was founded. I was a partner in the DC office of a large multi-city firm, Kelley Drye and Warren, and most of the lawyers in my office were new to me.

I had never brought a case in the Court of Federal Claims and had little experience as a lead litigator, but there was a senior (about to be partner) associate in the firm who was apparently quite experienced and very well thought of. Today, I can’t even remember his name, so let’s call him…..Max.

I did all the written work, and Max was to argue the case. We rehearsed carefully, and I went into the courtroom feeling upbeat. I felt both the law and the equities were on our side.

Our judge, whom I had got to know from several pre-trial conferences, was – to put it mildly – somewhat quirky and unpredictable. Max got up, addressed the court, and started to present our case. No more than two sentences into his carefully planned presentation, the judge interrupted him with something like “Counsellor, before you proceed, I have two questions to ask you, so that I am sure I have everything in context…..”. He then asked his questions, which Max answered satisfactorily. It was no big deal, I thought.

But then something happened. Max seemed to be suddenly totally at sea. His rehearsed presentation was nowhere to be found. He spent the next 15 or 20 minutes babbling. Sentences that didn’t make any sense, and were at times not even related to each other. Max then thanked the court, and sat down.

I was devastated. We were going to lose this case. And my clients did not deserve to lose.

Then, the judge’s quirkiness too over. He looked at me and said, “Mr. Hessel, you look unhappy, and I don’t want anyone in my court to leave feeling that they wished they had the opportunity to talk. So, if there is anything you would like to say, step up to the podium and say it.”

Wow! I thanked the court, and I presented the case the way I had thought Max should have.

Weeks later, the judge issued his decision. We won the case, as we should have. His published opinion, available for all to read, contains language that I have never seen before. After discussing the pros and cons of each side, he stated that he had decided to rule for the government until (and this is not the precise language) “Mr. Hessel stepped up to the podium and changed my mind.”

I was astounded at the reference to me. As to the case, the government did not appeal. As to Max, he never became a partner. As to the success of the project as the years passed, I have no idea.